The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1918. "MADE IN GERMANY"

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 295, 2 September 1918, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1918. "MADE IN GERMANY"

An important announcement regarding preparations which are being made for frustrating Germany's coming trade offensive is made in a New lork cablegram which wo publish in another column. The VicePresident- of the Allied Industries Board is about to leave New York in order to submit to the British and French authorities a plan of joint action with the object o£ pre-' venting Germany from exporting manufactured and other articles after tho war unless they bear the mark "Undo in Germany." Tho purpose, of this proposal is to make it impossible for Germany to flood the. world with her manufactures without disclosing their origin. It is well to know that steps are being taken to guard against this very real danger. The Germans arc fully aware that many of the trade doers through which their goods entered foreign countries in pre-war days will be shut in their faces when the competition for the world's markets is resumed. They quite understand that the brand of Germany will in future be an extremely bad advertisement for any article offered for sale in the countries with whom Geimany is at present at war; but they hope to bo able to secure by underhand methods commercial advantages which they cannot expect .to obtain by open and straightforward dealings. It is urgently necessary that the Allies should, jointly and individually, devise effective measures to nullify the secret wiles of their cunning and unscrupulous enemy. Now is the time to organise for peace. Unless our preparations are as thorough as those of Germany it is possible that after winning the war we may lose the peace. An agreement amoag the Allies to insist upon the disclosure of the origin of Gormanmade manufactures is undoubtedly a step in the right direction; but it is only one step, and a good raanjA other steps will be necessary if ■•Germany's policy of "peaceful penetration'* is to be successfully counteracted.

Britain finds it hard to make big changes in her commercial theories and practice. Even the war has not yet fully convinced her that hor old trade policy is dangerously obsolete, and that it would bo positively disastrous to enter upon tlw new economic struggle with sn?h a crippling handicap. But she is learning her lesson surely, if slowly. It was stated a few days ago in our cable columns that the Liverpool Cotton Association has adopted a by-law boycotting the enemy for ten. years after the war. This is a healthy sign. Public opinion now realises that the problems of trade and defence must not be separated.' Economic welfare and national safety depend upon each other; they aro simply two aspects .of one problem. The Prime Minister of Australia (Me. Hughes) insisted strongly and rightly on this point in speaking recently as the guest of the London Chamber of Commerce. He reminded his hearers that before the war the edifice of Britain's industrial and commercial greatness was honeycombed by German influence, German control, and German money. The British people were almost in the position of caretakers in the house they had built. Mr. Hughes gladly admitted that something-has been done to remedy this most .undesirable- state of _ affairs, and that more is in a fair way to be done, but he stated "as yet no definite general policy, fiscal or economic, has been declared, no national organisation estabno machinery created, to deal with ' |hc "thousand and one problems that will inevitably confront us." The British Government has not been quite as inactive as Mil. Hughes's words imply; but the most friendly critic could not contend that as much has been done as could and should have been done. Britain's delay in. adopting a "clear, definite economic policy" leaves the Dominions in a state of uncertainty. As Me. Hughes pointed out, "effective action by the Dominions awaits, and must necessarily await, the formulation of such a policy by Britain."

The Germans know that- their export trade would receive a deadly blow if Britain decided to abandon the open-door policy which did so much to build up Germany's naval and military power and commercial prosperity. A German writer, Emil Zimmerman, puts the position so plainly that we cannot help feeling amazed at our folly. He makes us realise with bitter regret tho colossal price we have had to pay for our short-sightedness. He says Germany's rise "depended essentially on the English policy, of the open door."

. Wo wore (ho proceeds) sojourners, in England's house, paying guests of tho Anglo-Suxons. The secret of our success lies, apart from our organisation and tho training of our working classes, in tho fact that England and tho countries which are the great producers of raw materials granted us an open door, allowed us to draw on their vast reservoirs of raw materials. If this permission is withdrawn wo shall be at one stroke onco more the Germany of 1880. Our dependence on tho Anglo-Saxon was so great that it is no exaggeration to say that our system of protection was only possible because tho Anglo-Saxons put at our-dis-posal flieir fields of cheap production across the sea. But tlicy did more—they' gave admission lo our morclmnls, (rndo agents, commercial establishments everywhere in their broad domains,' looked kindly on them, as long as they wore modest, and thereby they assisted materially to open markets for our industrial products.

But never again! If _ we should repeat this almost unimaginable folly then we should deserve whatever fate such madness might bring upon us. The Germans still cling to the belief that wo will refuse to allow experience to teach us wisdom. The Cologne Gazelle recently asserted that Britain is_ retreating from the Paris_ Resolutions and blunting their point. It assures the Gorman people that "the agreements among the Entente Powers are not to have the effect of excluding or boycotting the trade and shipping of the Central Powers, but are primarily to be nothing but a scheme of mutual support in overcoming the economic consequences of the war." The Cologne Gazette placed much reliance on the fact that the Balfour of Burleigh Committee rcnorted against the denunciation of "most-favoured-nation" commercial treaties by Britain.' This report did seem to provide some justification for German hopes, but. any such comfort was soon taken away by the announce-

men); that the British Government had decided to denounce the treaties referred to. Germany lias hitherto clung desperately to the hope that her military strength will somehow enable her to restore hjr former commercial prosperity; Out recant happenings on the West front show that she has put hcr_ trust on what is already a breaking and must sooner or later become a broken reed. __________